The amount of sarcasm I present is directly proportional to the amount of stupidity you present

Thursday, January 6, 2011

New News is Old News and Anecdotal Hypocrisy

Today I glanced at Orac’s cesspool of lies and misinformation and saw something interesting. Apparently, Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study was found to be fraudulent. The RID (Ridicule/Ignore/Deny) movement is up in arms, celebrating the downfall of their most despised foe. This is new and breaking News…wait a second. Why do I get such a strong feeling of Déjà vu?

Out of the blue, Brian Deer yells “Wakefield is a Fraud!”

The same thing he yelled in 2004…and 2005…and on up to 2010. Why is this news again?

Orac and his mindless mob of mumbling meatheads think that this is huge. They think that because Brian Deer, a journalist who is not scientifically trained, says that his analysis of the medical records of the Lancet children is true, then it must be true!

Now, before I begin, I must make a confession. I don’t know as much as I’d like about the Lancet study and the resulting scandal. Honestly, it has been something I’ve been meaning to get around to looking at, but just haven’t had the time. I also haven’t read Wakefield’s book, though I would like to. Again, it all falls down to lack of time. So, I will refrain from certain specifics about the study and the children within the study and stick with what I know about this case.

MSNBC headlines are emblazed upon the interwebz with the cry of “First Study to link Vaccines and Autism Declared a Fraud!”

Orac croons over at his Sewer that Wakefield’s fraud was “worse than previously thought.” Josephius at Huffington Post crows that he told us so. To them, this is not about children or health or protecting the herd; it’s about being right.

This all stems from a report by the journalist who originally brought charges against Dr. Wakefield and who went to the GMC council in England concerning this.

Is Wakefield guilty of fraud? Maybe. I don’t know, to be honest, because I haven’t read everything concerning this. When I do get the opportunity to read through the details, I’ll make my own judgment instead of letting someone else tell me what I should think…you know, like Orac tells his lickspittles to do?

What I do know is this. Going from Deer’s article, apparently he approached one of the parents of the Lancet 12 and found some pretty damning “evidence.” But, no one has verified this evidence. They are going off of Brian Deer’s word, and as we all know, he is perfectly unbiased and without conflict of interest considering he is being paid by a member of the board of directors for Glaxo Smith Kline, the company who made the MMR vaccine that Wakefield’s report questioned. You see, anecdotes like this are ok as long as it defends their paradigm.

Another thing. Looking at the MSNBC article, I notice a couple of glaring errors. This wasn’t a study; it was a case report. And, apparently both MSNBC and Orac failed to actually READ the report. Why do I say this, you ask?

Let’s look at what’s being said here:

From MSNBC, “First Study to link Vaccines and Autism Declared a Fraud!”

King Idiot also parrots this by-line, claiming that the report, not study, linked vaccines and autism.

What does the study say, though?

From the conclusion: “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described (p.164)”

Wait a second! The media is attacking Wakefield for fabricating a report, not study, about a link between vaccines and autism that didn’t actually link vaccines and autism?

Are we confused yet?

Brian Deer carefully analyzed the medical reports of the Lancet 12 and, with his extensive medical training, determined that the data was a fraud.

Now, my dear readers (no pun intended), take the time to consider what is wrong with my previous statement. Both the obvious and not-so-obvious.

Right…Deer is a journalist, not a scientist. And secondly…how was he able to get access to and report on confidential medical records belonging to children below the age of consent, i.e. minors?

Isn’t that illegal? Isn’t that a breach of journalistic integrity and a glaring example of professional misconduct?

So, Deer, the journalist (not scientist) declares that his expert analysis of the medical records of children that he somehow had access to (despite laws that prevent such things) contradicts the findings of Wakefield’s report (not study) that linked a vaccine (made by a company that his boss is on the board of directors of) with the childhood condition known as autism (but actually didn’t link the vaccine to said autism).

I know…hard to follow, huh? It gets better.

You see, none, not one, of the parents of the Lancet children has come forth to corroborate Deer’s claims. In fact, almost all of them defend Dr. Wakefield!

But, we should take Brian Deer’s word for it. Yes we should! The same Brian Deer who stood on national TV, looking at the picture a mother was holding up of her son, who was wearing a colostomy bag after having part of his bowel removed due to bowel disease, and arrogantly declaring with his expert opinion, “That’s not Bowel Disease; that’s diarrhea!”

Seems reliable, yes?

You know, this reminds me of the trial and media blitz about the Doctor who, by signing off on ghost written articles, killed tens of thousands of people by faking the data on the safety of Merck’s Vioxx. Anyone know his name? Can anyone find any articles about this?

Strange, huh?

Continuing the theme of accepting anecdote as evidence when it defends paradigms (you know, what Orac and his doltish clowns laugh at people like me about), I thought I would bring up an interesting exchange I saw recently at Orac’s Brothel.

In his article discussing Dr. Offit’s new book, a discussion took place about the alleged death threats against Dr. Offit. In it, a series of searches and links were provided, and then someone anonymously chimes in;

“I hate to side with STY and Say What here, but the google search you provided are all links to anecdotes. All we have to go on Dr. Offit's word, and that is just hear-say.”

Now, the two he/she mentioned were essentially trolls, and from the tone of his/her comment, he/she was only agreeing that the claims from Offit were anecdotal. But, then, he/she is vehemently attacked for saying that without proof, these claims weren’t evidence.

17 comments:

I heard this news on the CBC radio this morning, and I think out of 5 facts they stated, 4 of them were wrong. Among other things claimed that the study was published by BMJ in 1998 (it was the Lancet), that the vaccination rate in the UK dropped by 80% -- that one really got me laughing, maybe to 80% from 81% -- and that the study linked MMR to Autism (again, not claimed by the study).

Minority, I wouldn't want to waste money on that bet. And thank you...I felt quite snarky when I wrote that piece. Then again, part of that may have been the 5 hours sleep in 4 days that was subjected upon me by my insomniac son.

Schwartz, I'm reading over your article. One quick question; is it possible to add links to your research? I think it would add credence to what you've written.

On a completely separate note, I must take the time to pat myself on the back. It looks as if the filter-bot I wrote for my site is working splendidly! I no longer have to see the creepy worm's sniveling twaddle. The bot only tells me that he tried to post something, and it was then summarily deleted.

I'm genuinely surprised that someone is that stupid that he cannot take a hint.

"And secondly…how was he able to get access to and report on confidential medical records belonging to children below the age of consent, i.e. minors?"

From what I have read in his article, he was able to obtain this information from the GMC hearings. However, this explaination lacks several important details. For example, from a legal standpoint, this information should have been redacted. And, reading his comments on the BMJ where he mentions that he knows the names, medical and family histories of all twelve of the Lancet children, this brings forth some serious questions.

How was he able to obtain this information, and what are the ethical implications? I tried mentioning this on Respectful Insolence, but I was quite severely attacked for my legitimate and polite question to Mr. Deer. Then, my response to these unpricipaled attacks was promptly moderated. Admittedly, it was in the same vein that they attacked me, but it was censored nonetheless.

You'll note that in his article, Brian Deer notes that he visited the house of Child #2 in 2003 PRIOR to the GMC hearings. I believe that was the interview he obtained by misrepresenting (lying) about why he was interviewing them. Back in March 2010, I have excerpted from a number of rapid responses at BMJ. Brian Deer never responded to any of the questions and a few days later, the whole thread was censored/removed by the BMJ.

Excerpt from post by Brian Deer:"I am very concerned by the e-letter from Dr Edward Yazbak, a retired paediatrician of Falmouth, Massachusetts, claiming to be a grandparent of a child enrolled in the Wakefield Lancet study of February 1998. With this apparent credential, he lauded praise upon Wakefield, as he has done at public meetings which they have addressed together. I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States. I don't believe that Dr Yazbak has a family relationship with any of them."

Excerpt from post from Hilary Butler:"Could Brian Deer please let the BMJ know the means by which UK legislation allows free lance (or any other) journalists, to view original research files, and compare them with Royal Free (or any other hospital or private practice) medical files of children with full identities available, all test results available, without parental consent; the studies' authors consent; privacy restraints or hospital ethics committee approval?Could Brian Deer also let the BMJ know the means by which a freelance journalist initiates proceedings with the GMC? As he so graphically stated on Radio New Zealand, (1) such fraudulent behaviour is but the tip of medical fraud iceberg. Sincerely, Hilary Butler.(1) http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2010/02/11/feature_guest_-_brian_deer http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/feb02_4/c644 2010-03-24 20:58:53Competing interests: None declared"

Excerpt from response from Dr. Yazbak"I must say that I am troubled that Mr. Deer was able to obtain the names and family backgrounds of the 12 original study patients. I am also surprised that he finds it fair to censor my defense of Dr. Wakefield after he subjected him to public flagellation for so long. Maybe it is time for Mr. Deer to take a deep breath and relax...."When we took our boy to the Royal Free, we wanted to find out what was wrong with him.We just could not see him suffer and cry all day anymore. It was our understanding that while many children with autism and GI problems were being treated at the unit, only few could be fully investigated because of a multitude of reasons.We were therefore most elated when my grandson was selected. That is what I meant when I mentioned the bmj.com Rapid “study”. We still count our blessings that my daughter and her family were living in London at the time."

Response from John A Dodge, Hon Professor of Child Health:"Like Hilary Butler, I was surprised that the journalist Brian Deer apparently holds names and addresses of autistic patients, as well as the details of their clinical histories.As the former director of a national disease registry, I am well aware of the difficulty bona fide medical researchers often encounter, and of the great lengths to which hospitals and Trusts go to ensure confidentiality, and where possible anonymity, for patients before they will release any information, for fear of violating the Data Protection Act.It is particularly surprising that a journalist for a lay newspaper under orders to find a big story (Mr Deer's own words) could persuade a respected teaching hospital to give him such data. Did the request go to the research ethics committee? Did he obtain written consent from the parents? Was he not given instructions to destroy all information which could possibly identify individuals as soon as he had extracted what he needed, in which case he should no longer hold names and addresses?Remembering the threat of litigation if journalists should try to reveal the immunisation status of the child of the then Prime Minister, I can only conclude that Mr Deer either covered his back and went through the correct procedures, or else that he assumed that the parents would have no appetite, or money, to take him, his newspaper or the hospital Trust to court for violating their privacy. I await his clarification with interest."

Response by Bill Welsh:"Professor Hodge, Hilary Butler andJohn Stone touch on probably the most alarming aspect of the already disturbing MMR debacle: The provision of the medical records of vulnerable children to a tabloid journalist. Unless ‘medical ethics’ is a one-way street applicable only to Dr Wakefield and his colleagues there was apparently a monumental breach of ethics at the Royal Free Hospital. One assumes a criminal investigation was instigated (with full police involvement) by Dr Ari Zuckerman and Dr Michael Pegg (senior witnesses against Dr Wakefield) because anything less would be totally unacceptable to the British public and one hopes to the medical community...."

Response by Joan Campbell,"I would also like to know how a journalist like Brian Deer is allowed to see children's medical records never mind having a list of the MMR/MR UK Group Litigation children whose legal aid was cruelly taken away. I sent an open letter that was published in the Scottish Daily Mail to Tony Blair asking him did he give Leo his son the MMR and his secretary replied saying that the Prime Minister could not answer that question as Leo's medical files were confidential..."

Response from Isabella Thomas:"Brian Deer had the names of the Lancet Children and dates they entered the Royal Free hospital on his web-sit for all to see long before the GMC hearing. His view was that some of us parent were in the media. The problem with that is that I did not tell the media that my boys were part of the Lancet study until Brian Deer let it be known. I have e-mailed him on numerous occasions asking him how he got hold of my children's medical notes without my permission. He has never interviewed me or my family and has not replied to this question. I believe Brian Deer got hold of confidential information on our children and want to know how this can happen. He told me in an e-mail that he managed to prise confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital. This question below has not been answered by Brian Deer: Could Brian Deer also please let the BMJ know the means by which UK legislation allows free lance (or any other) journalists, to view original research files, and compare them with Royal Free (or any other hospital or private practice) medical files of children with full identities available, all test results available, without parental consent; the studies' authors consent; privacy restraints or hospital ethics committee approval?"

Response by Bill Welsh:"Professor Hodge, Hilary Butler andJohn Stone touch on probably the most alarming aspect of the already disturbing MMR debacle: The provision of the medical records of vulnerable children to a tabloid journalist. Unless ‘medical ethics’ is a one-way street applicable only to Dr Wakefield and his colleagues there was apparently a monumental breach of ethics at the Royal Free Hospital. One assumes a criminal investigation was instigated (with full police involvement) by Dr Ari Zuckerman and Dr Michael Pegg (senior witnesses against Dr Wakefield) because anything less would be totally unacceptable to the British public and one hopes to the medical community...."

Response by Joan Campbell,"I would also like to know how a journalist like Brian Deer is allowed to see children's medical records never mind having a list of the MMR/MR UK Group Litigation children whose legal aid was cruelly taken away. I sent an open letter that was published in the Scottish Daily Mail to Tony Blair asking him did he give Leo his son the MMR and his secretary replied saying that the Prime Minister could not answer that question as Leo's medical files were confidential..."

Response from Isabella Thomas:"Brian Deer had the names of the Lancet Children and dates they entered the Royal Free hospital on his web-sit for all to see long before the GMC hearing. His view was that some of us parent were in the media. The problem with that is that I did not tell the media that my boys were part of the Lancet study until Brian Deer let it be known. I have e-mailed him on numerous occasions asking him how he got hold of my children's medical notes without my permission. He has never interviewed me or my family and has not replied to this question. I believe Brian Deer got hold of confidential information on our children and want to know how this can happen. He told me in an e-mail that he managed to prise confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital. This question below has not been answered by Brian Deer: Could Brian Deer also please let the BMJ know the means by which UK legislation allows free lance (or any other) journalists, to view original research files, and compare them with Royal Free (or any other hospital or private practice) medical files of children with full identities available, all test results available, without parental consent; the studies' authors consent; privacy restraints or hospital ethics committee approval?"

Response from Isabella Thomas:"Brian Deer had the names of the Lancet Children and dates they entered the Royal Free hospital on his web-sit for all to see long before the GMC hearing. His view was that some of us parent were in the media. The problem with that is that I did not tell the media that my boys were part of the Lancet study until Brian Deer let it be known. I have e-mailed him on numerous occasions asking him how he got hold of my children's medical notes without my permission. He has never interviewed me or my family and has not replied to this question. I believe Brian Deer got hold of confidential information on our children and want to know how this can happen. He told me in an e-mail that he managed to prise confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital. This question below has not been answered by Brian Deer: Could Brian Deer also please let the BMJ know the means by which UK legislation allows free lance (or any other) journalists, to view original research files, and compare them with Royal Free (or any other hospital or private practice) medical files of children with full identities available, all test results available, without parental consent; the studies' authors consent; privacy restraints or hospital ethics committee approval?"

Share it

Stuff I look at regularly

My Policies

I don't really mind vulgarities, so much. As long as you aren't rude or an asshole to me, we're cool. I don't moderate, so watch the attitude, or you will get banned. Also keep in mind that these posts are clearly my opinions, and I give the reason for my opinions where I see fit.